In Entertainment

Top Stories

NEW YORK, N.Y. - A day after Trevor Noah was declared the new host of "The Daily Show," his graphic tweets targeting women and Jews are causing a social media backlash and Comedy Central is defending ...

In Opinion

Viewpoints

Viaduct closure will lead to more pollution from idling cars
Isn’t it interesting: It is OK to close the Georgia Viaduct, causing traffic congestion and increasing greenhouse gas emissions to film a movie...

In Health

Top Stories

Health Canada says stronger warnings about the risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviours are being added to prescribing information for all drugs used to manage attention deficit hyperactivity disorder...

Running shoe conundrum picks up speed

Most of us overthink when it comes to choosing the right shoe, experts say

When a new fad comes along, runners shouldn’t rush to abandon a shoe style that has served them well.

Photograph by: Phil Carpenter
, The Gazette

Choosing the right running shoes has never been easy. Besides the usual variables like style, price, make, model, comfort and fit, runners also spend time considering more technical features like cushioning and stability.

In recent years, however, the debate about what runners put on their feet has heated up. From the au naturel crowd who think shoes are unnecessary, to the more conservative wave of runners who believe in shoes but not their technology, there’s a distinct shift away from the old rules of choosing shoes.

Cushioning, once considered the primary measure of a shoe’s worth, has dropped down the list of a shoe’s must-haves. So, too, have stability features, which are designed to correct biomechanical flaws. Today runners are told to rely on perfect mechanics instead of the perfect pair of shoes if they want to reduce the risk of injury.

Those mechanics include shifting from striking the ground heel first to landing mid- to forefoot first. In fact, say those who support a forefoot landing, switching from landing on your heel to landing on the front of your foot reduces so much of the impact stress that running shoes no longer need their customary well cushioned heel to reduce the risk of injury.

That shift in philosophy has caused considerable confusion among those who have spent most of their running lives pounding the pavement in cushioned shoes laden with technology. Add to the fact that there’s no proof changing your shoes or how your foot makes contact with the ground will keep runners injury free, and the confusion is well-justified.

“We’re in a muddy area when it comes to choosing shoes, said David Pearsall, a professor of biomechanics in the kinesiology and physical education department of McGill University.

Pearsall believes the barefoot fad has died down, leaving most runners to choose a shoe that lands somewhere between the technology-laden model of old and the minimalist style that features little more than a thin sole and upper. This stripped down version of running shoe has a lower profile heel with decidedly less cushioning and minimal stability features.

Does that mean runners need to abandon shoes that have served them well for decades and buy into this new fad of running shoes?

Not necessarily. Pearsall advises against changing shoes that have helped keep you healthy over the years.

“Runners need to calm down when it comes to choosing their shoes,” he said.

Most of us overthink when it comes to choosing the right shoe, Ferber said. He also suggests the debate about what part of the foot hits the pavement first is moot.

“Eighty-nine to 95 per cent of runners land on their heel,” Ferber said. “And it doesn’t matter if they are in a cushioned or zero-drop shoe.”

Ferber cited a prominent study that photographed recreational and sub-elite runners’ feet at various points during the course of a marathon. The number of mid and forefoot strikers in the crowd was minimal (just over five per cent) with a large percentage of that same crowd converting to a heel first landing by the 32-kilometre mark.

Contrary to most of the propaganda around running and running shoes, Ferber said, the majority of runners have pretty typical mechanics and do well in a neutral shoe with very little added stability.

“Only about 15 per cent of runners have excessive foot mechanics,” Ferber said.

Back in the ’90s, Ferber claims about 60 per cent of runners were in motion control shoes. Nowadays, only about two per cent to three per cent of runners rely on added stability, which he said is a more realistic representation of who actually needs a mild to moderate correction in their biomechanics. That change, Ferber said, is a positive result of the recent debate about whether or not runners actually benefit from added technology.

Does that mean runners should start trading in their current stability shoes for something with less support?

“Run in something comfortable,” he said. “That’s the best measure of good shoe.”

That’s true even if the sales clerk at your local shoe store suggests otherwise. Ferber said analyzing running mechanics takes more than the trained eye of the average shoe retailer. And contrary to the increasingly popular practice of filming your stride on an in-store treadmill, it takes more than one camera pointed at your feet to make an informed decision about how to improve your mechanics. Ferber’s lab uses multiple cameras that capture a runner’s style from several angles before offering an opinion on shoes and foot strike.

As for injury, Pearsall reminds runners that overuse, not shoes is the primary cause of injury among runners. So before you consider changing your shoes, trying changing your running habits.

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.